Useitorloseit (talk | contribs) |
SergeWoodzing (talk | contribs) →Survey: out |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
*:I'd rather combine the two, under the Biden RFC. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
*:I'd rather combine the two, under the Biden RFC. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' - Just saying she's the 49th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Also, this needs to be consistent with every current officeholder whose page says "current". [[User:Useitorloseit|Useitorloseit]] ([[User talk:Useitorloseit|talk]]) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - Just saying she's the 49th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Also, this needs to be consistent with every current officeholder whose page says "current". [[User:Useitorloseit|Useitorloseit]] ([[User talk:Useitorloseit|talk]]) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Remove''' - what else could "is" mean here than ''is''? When she leaves, there'll be ''was'', right? Why not just "... is an American politician and attorney and the 49th vice president of the United ..."--[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) ? The wordiness looks ridiculous. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
Revision as of 15:40, 25 June 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The consensus version
I don't know where I can add a message requesting an edit to Kamala's wiki page, but I would like one of the mods to add a hyperlink to the 2010 California Attorney General's election that is in the second paragraph: "Born in Oakland, California, Harris graduated from Howard University and the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. She began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, before being recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later the City Attorney of San Francisco's office. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. She was elected Attorney General of California in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. Can you link 2010 to the 2010 Attorney General's election? Thanks, Rhein Amacher, Tue May 10th 8:01 PM PST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhein Amacher (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The consensus version for describing KH's achievement is the first female vice president of the US, the first African-American, and the first Asian-American. I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021. Admins valereee, MelanieN, Drmies, Muboshgu please note and restore; otherwise, the "ethnic" sub-nationalists and trolls will have a field day. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I concur this is the consensus version and I have restored it. "First female" is the first sentence since it is the most reported and most historic. "First African-American and first Asian-American" is the second sentence. Terms like South Asian-American, Jamaican-American, and (per the one I just replaced) Caribbean-American and should not be added without a new discussion and a new consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The edits I made did not contradict the overall achievement of Harris being the "First African-American and first Asian-American" Vice President, it simply provided further accurate and separate cited detail regards her own personal family's ancestry. Though I can see the FAQ, I do Respectfully request that someone please guide me to where consensus was actually reached not to include this information. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bodney, archives, linked at top of page. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was unable to spot the RfC in the archives, I now have thanks (maybe a simple specific wiki-link RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? to similar previous archived discussions would quickly deal unknowing editors like me in future :) Thanks anyway. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- And Bodney, the additional information about her ancestry is included in the body of the article, just not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bodney, archives, linked at top of page. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The edits I made did not contradict the overall achievement of Harris being the "First African-American and first Asian-American" Vice President, it simply provided further accurate and separate cited detail regards her own personal family's ancestry. Though I can see the FAQ, I do Respectfully request that someone please guide me to where consensus was actually reached not to include this information. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should we tweak the FAQ? It says South Asian American throughout, which could be confusing. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it should simply be "Asian American". I believe that is what the sources predominantly say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- They say Asian-American specifically in reference to being vice president. In that position, she is not only the first South Asian, she is the first Asian. We say South Asian for other positions, such as senator where she was the first South Asian but not the first Asian. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it should simply be "Asian American". I believe that is what the sources predominantly say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- If one goes far enough back, you will discover the consensus was South Asian-American. Then Sen. Harris was picked by VP Biden to be the VP nominee, and a large number of editors were attracted to this page. South Asian-American is how Sen. Harris identifies, and that is what should matter. Rklahn (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I believe we had consensus that the largest group should be used for the "firsts", so rather than first South Asian-American VP-elect, first Asian American was what we went with. For the senate, first South Asian-American. My question was only whether that needed to be further explained in the FAQs. Not that anyone reads them, but it's good to document what current consensus is. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Im not sure such a consensus existed, but I am also not the Oracle of consensus. That begin said, yes, there is value in documenting what the current consensus is. I think it moves us closer to consensus having some of the attributes of Stare decisis. I think that this idea floating around Wikipedia that consensus can be achieved, and in the next moment ignored, counterproductive. Rklahn (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rklahn, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at with that final sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please tweak the FAQ to reflect her new status. Yes, it should be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American, in that order. In my view, Af-Ams takes precedence over As-Ams in the context of the US, not only because they go back further in this history of the US (indeed on average they precede even European Americans), but also because they have played a major role in the creation of the American ethos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- PS She is and will remain the second female African-American senator and the first South Asian American (senator) in US history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler, can you clarify what you mean by new status? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, The point Im getting at is that true consensus on Wikipedia is illusory. On this very page, on this very subject, I worked hard with a group of Editors to achieve a consensus, which we did. Out in the open and on these Talk pages. Less than a week later, that consensus was ignored. So, any move that gets us closer to consensus meaning something is welcome to me. Rklahn (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rklahn, diffs please? I'm still not following. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- By new status I meant from senator to VP-nominee (and VP-elect and eventually VP). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I cant even find the consensus Im referring to in the Talk Archive. Im reasonably sure it happened before the Talk pages were archived at all, so maybe it got lost in the shuffle. I think at this point the best move for me is to drop the point, which is minor anyways, and to say that I support efforts to document the consensus, whatever it is. Rklahn (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rklahn, diffs please? I'm still not following. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please tweak the FAQ to reflect her new status. Yes, it should be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American, in that order. In my view, Af-Ams takes precedence over As-Ams in the context of the US, not only because they go back further in this history of the US (indeed on average they precede even European Americans), but also because they have played a major role in the creation of the American ethos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rklahn, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at with that final sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Im not sure such a consensus existed, but I am also not the Oracle of consensus. That begin said, yes, there is value in documenting what the current consensus is. I think it moves us closer to consensus having some of the attributes of Stare decisis. I think that this idea floating around Wikipedia that consensus can be achieved, and in the next moment ignored, counterproductive. Rklahn (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- I believe we had consensus that the largest group should be used for the "firsts", so rather than first South Asian-American VP-elect, first Asian American was what we went with. For the senate, first South Asian-American. My question was only whether that needed to be further explained in the FAQs. Not that anyone reads them, but it's good to document what current consensus is. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
please read the FAQ above--RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
First African American is disingenuous (at the very least) to say she is African American. Her father was Jamaican...how is this a qualifier for African American inclusion? The last I checked Jamaica was in the Caribbean and not on the continent of Africa. My asking this question and pointing out the obvious probably makes me a racist and surely a half dozen other socially stigmatizing labels. Though an answer would be appreciated. Signed an unimportant IP address editor.2600:1700:7610:41E0:C5FD:ED64:EB06:3ADA (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow! what a friendly and courteous answer from a arrogant and aggressive editor. I asked a question and I get sarcasm. Though in your response you do agree with me and yourself call her Afro-Jamaican and not African-American...hmm...interesting...don't ya think? This is probably why this article and many others do not get improved and only sink deeper into the abyss. The second response was much friendlier and appreciated. Thank you. Though I still find it inaccurate and barring a family tree likely inaccurate to be described as it is. Wouldn't one of the terms Black Caribbean, Afro or Black West Indian or Afro or Black Antillean or Afro-Jamaican (as the first respondent used) to be more accurate in describing her ancestry seeing as no documentation or family tree is provided or cited within the article itself. I would think an encyclopedia should be as factual and reference filled before taking a large leap (of faith with assumption) such as this article has done. Thank you and have a blessed day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
|
- One issue that deserves a lot more attention in this article is her relationship with Willie Brown. While a 29-year-old deputy district attorney, Harris had an affair with then 60-year leader of the California legislature Willie Brown. While they were dating, Brown appointed Harris to two paid commission posts, and effectively jump-started her political career. As she would likely never have had a political career otherwise, an item of this significance should be prominently mentioned, perhaps in the lede. Certainly it deserves more than part of a sentence buried deep within the article. Vinny Gambino (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- We have discussed the Willie Brown connection many times, and seemed to reach a consensus that presents the facts in a balanced encyclopedic way with an appropriate amount of weight. That being said, if you have a proposed edit, let's talk about it. Rklahn (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- One issue that deserves a lot more attention in this article is her relationship with Willie Brown. While a 29-year-old deputy district attorney, Harris had an affair with then 60-year leader of the California legislature Willie Brown. While they were dating, Brown appointed Harris to two paid commission posts, and effectively jump-started her political career. As she would likely never have had a political career otherwise, an item of this significance should be prominently mentioned, perhaps in the lede. Certainly it deserves more than part of a sentence buried deep within the article. Vinny Gambino (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I also have a few of questions regarding Harris' past employment history, specifically her being hired as Alameda county Deputy DA in 1990 (she was 26-years-old). Two of the requirements for that job is almost always to have clerked for a judge and have experience as an attorney in private practice or as a Deputy DA. Harris had neither. In fact, she never had a job until she was given her Deputy DA job. It should be noted in the article, in my opinion, that she had a resume that should have precluded her from getting that job. She claims to have gotten "involved" with Willie Brown in 1994. Well, the lack of a worthy or notable resume seems to indicate someone - someone of considerable influence - pulled strings to get her that Deputy DA job in 1990. Willie Brown was certainly someone who at that time, being Speaker of the CA Assembly, could have arranged her employment as a Deputy DA in Alameda county. Alameda county was in his district at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:6201:a79b:2913:a3bc:f1d3:c561 (talk)
- Your opinion of the matter has no bearing whatsoever on a Wikipedia article. If you have an actual suggestion of an addition to an article, then by all means produce one, sourced to a reliable source. Zaathras (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the requirements are that high. See for example Indeed's list of open positions.[1] IIRC, there was little interest among graduates to work for the county DA. In any case, you would need a source that said their was something exceptional about this. Otherwise, it's just a case of a law grad getting an entry level job that paid below average. TFD (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"49th and current"
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: Same RFC being held at the Joe Biden bio. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Survey
- Neutral - Doesn't matter to me, as long as we have the intros of the Biden & Harris bios, in sync. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove It is redundant and against MOS. MOS:REALTIME gives the example:
The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007"
. . – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC) - Remove. Relative temporal language should be avoided, since it will become inaccurate in the future (and even though the article about Harris is likely to be updated as soon as "current" is no longer true, there will still be permalinks, printed and other offline versions, and so on). Language which will always be accurate, even in a thousand years, is always preferable to language which will become outdated and incorrect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove per jpgordon below, it is redundant. Redundant language bloats articles and takes longer to read. TFD (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove As I said below. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I support whatever the parallel Joe Biden RfC resolves as. The questions are the same (and I see no reason why one article should be worded differently than the other), but the Joe Biden article is more heavily watched so his RfC should attract more attention. Endwise (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove As it is unnecessary to have current in the intro MraClean (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove Redundant and not in line with WP MOS as per MOS:REALTIMEWritethisway (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per my analysis at Talk:Joe Biden. I think it's concerning see a differing of consensus for here than at the Biden article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bad RfC This should probably be shut down. This is the exact question posed at Talk:Joe Biden. We should just use the consensus at the Biden page and apply it to pages like this. @GoodDay: maybe you should consider withdrawing this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Just saying she's the 49th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Also, this needs to be consistent with every current officeholder whose page says "current". Useitorloseit (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove - what else could "is" mean here than is? When she leaves, there'll be was, right? Why not just "... is an American politician and attorney and the 49th vice president of the United ..."--SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) ? The wordiness looks ridiculous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
"is the 49th and current" -- "and current" is redundant, since "is" means "right now". If "and current" was not there, would it be ambiguous or vague? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree completely. "And current" is redundant with the present tense of the sentence. Why use two extra words that aren't needed? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It should remain with "...and current", until this is settled over at the Joe Biden article. Best not to 'force' changes, without getting a consensus & best to keep the Biden & Harris bios intros in sync. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you just violated the discretionary standards here; perhaps you should revert yourself and back off a bit. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I violated nothing. Would be better if you cooled off & let the RFC run its course & respect the 'current' status quo. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- There was no RFC on this page, and you did two identical reverts in 24 hours. I only became aware of the discussion there when you mentioned it here. What do you mean "cool off"? You're the one aggressively reverting, not me. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I violated nothing. Would be better if you cooled off & let the RFC run its course & respect the 'current' status quo. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you just violated the discretionary standards here; perhaps you should revert yourself and back off a bit. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If it's removed. Would "49th vice president of the United States, since 2021", be an acceptable alternative? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)